Jimmerson v. City of Oxford

Mississippi Supreme Court

Jimmerson v. City of Oxford

2 So. 2d 152, 190 Miss. 884, 1941 Miss. LEXIS 107

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedMay 12, 1941

DocketNo. 34408.

StatusPublished

This text of 2 So. 2d 152 (Jimmerson v. City of Oxford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jimmerson v. City of Oxford, 2 So. 2d 152, 190 Miss. 884, 1941 Miss. LEXIS 107 (Mich. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, O'. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a conviction for having intoxicating liquor in possession. The appellant’s only complaint is that the court below erred in admitting the city’s evidence of the ordinance under which he was convicted. This ordinance was not proven by a certified copy thereof, but by the introduction of the ordinance book in which it appears. Section 2545, Code of 1930', provides for the keeping of a municipal ordinance book and that ordinances shall be entered therein “at length, in a plain and distinct handwriting or typewriting.” This ordinance was not so entered, but a printed proof of the publication thereof setting forth the ordinance at *887 length and the date of its passage was securely pasted to one of the pages in the book. While this copy of the ordinance was printed instead of being typewritten, to hold that the statute was not thereby complied with would be hypercritical, and would sacrifice substance to shadow.

The municipal clerk did not append to the ordinance “a note stating the date of its passage, and cite therein the book and page of the minutes containing the record of its passage, ’ ’ as provided by the statute. This requirement is merely for convenience in finding the ordinance in the minutes of the city’s governing body, is merely directory, and the failure to comply therewith has. no effect on the ordinance or on the copy thereof in the ordinance book.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Smith, O'. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a conviction for having intoxicating liquor in possession. The appellant’s only complaint is that the court below erred in admitting the city’s evidence of the ordinance under which he was convicted. This ordinance was not proven by a certified copy thereof, but by the introduction of the ordinance book in which it appears. Section 2545, Code of 1930', provides for the keeping of a municipal ordinance book and that ordinances shall be entered therein “at length, in a plain and distinct handwriting or typewriting.” This ordinance was not so entered, but a printed proof of the publication thereof setting forth the ordinance at *887 length and the date of its passage was securely pasted to one of the pages in the book. While this copy of the ordinance was printed instead of being typewritten, to hold that the statute was not thereby complied with would be hypercritical, and would sacrifice substance to shadow.

The municipal clerk did not append to the ordinance “a note stating the date of its passage, and cite therein the book and page of the minutes containing the record of its passage, ’ ’ as provided by the statute. This requirement is merely for convenience in finding the ordinance in the minutes of the city’s governing body, is merely directory, and the failure to comply therewith has. no effect on the ordinance or on the copy thereof in the ordinance book.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 So. 2d 152, 190 Miss. 884, 1941 Miss. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmerson-v-city-of-oxford-miss-1941.